 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Ford / Ford Mustang / May 2006Hoping for Good Gas News....
Just received this...... granted this publication is focused on investors, but we could sure use some good news.... Dear MoneyNews Reader, Saudi Arabia's oil minister Ali al-Naimi is warning that oil price hikes and global oil demand could soon disappear. In fact, he is also warning that oil prices could easily "plummet" in the near future. As you may know, Financial Intelligence Report, a sister publication of NewsMax and MoneyNews, has already issued the same warning to our investors. We also have revealed how investors can profit from the coming oil price drop - find out more. Our track record on oil is impressive. In April 2004, Financial Intelligence Report predicted that oil prices would skyrocket from $29 per barrel to over $60 within 12 months. That forecast was dead on. Today we feel that oil prices will continue to dramatically fall in the next 12 months to as low as $40 a barrel! And please take a moment to read about the Saudi oil minister's comments on oil reprinted below from the Associated Press. Thank you. NewsMax and MoneyNews.Com _____ Oil Minister: Don't Bank on High Growth NewsMax.Com Wires AMMAN, Jordan - Saudi Arabia's oil minister warned Arab producers Sunday not to expect continued growth in prices and demand for oil. Ali al-Naimi said prices could plummet if an economic crisis drives industrialized nations to find other sources of energy, citing the 1980s - when oil prices dropped by 80 percent after such nations reduced their dependency on Oil and turned to alternative energy sources. ''Global economic growth may not continue at the same good momentum for years to come,'' al-Naimi said at the opening of a four-day conference of Arab energy ministers in Amman. ''We should be careful and not take expectations as indisputable, especially the continuation of big demand for oil and its prices remaining at the same level or increasing,'' he said. Al-Naimi also cited the Asian economic crisis of 1997-1998, when oil prices fell by 50 percent, slowing Arab oil production. ''Some are even concerned about a looming economic problem because of the increased policies of economic protectionism, or what is known as economic nationalism,'' al-Naimi said, referring to Western countries' determination to become less dependent on Middle Eastern oil. Sixty percent of the world's oil reserves lie in Arab countries, one third of global production comes from Arab sources and 40 percent of all oil business is conducted by Arabs, he said. Global oil prices fell but finished last week roughly $2 a barrel higher, as traders' concerns about geopolitical threats and refinery snags outweighed evidence of rising supplies and forecasts calling for weakening global demand. Crude futures dipped toward $72 a barrel Friday after the International Energy Agency reduced its 2006 world oil demand forecast. Earlier in the week, the U.S. Department of Energy said domestic gasoline supplies increased for the second straight week. Still, oil prices are about 48 percent higher than a year ago, a reflection of the market's fear about real and possible output disruptions at a time when the world's supply cushion is perilously thin. Only Saudi Arabia has any spare production capacity, but it is less than 2 percent of the daily global demand of almost 85 million barrels and not the high quality crude that refiners prefer, analysts said. U.S. Retail gasoline prices average roughly $2.89 a gallon, or about 70 cents more than last year. Did you know that oil inventories are at record levels? There is more oil available for use then in the past 10 years! Find out the facts: Get a copy of our FREE special report Profiting From the Coming Oil Bust. This email was sent to: I deleted the name This email was sent by: NewsMax.Com 4152 West Blue Heron Blvd, Ste 1114 Riviera Beach, FL, 33404 USA -- Spike 1965 Ford Mustang Fastback 2+2, Vintage Burgundy w/Black Std Interior, A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok; Vintage 40 16" rims w/225/50ZR16 KDWS BF Goodrich gForce Radial T/As, Cobra drop; surround sound audio-video... See my ride at.... Feb 2004- http://207.36.208.198/albums/86810/003_May_21_3004.jpg Feb 2004- http://207.36.208.198/albums/86810/005_May_21_2004.jpg Jul 2005- http://207.36.208.198/albums/86810/davescar_7_11_05_002.jpg Jul 2005- http://207.36.208.198/albums/86810/Engine_rebuild_006.jpg >Just received this...... granted this publication is focused on >investors, but we could sure use some good news.... Well even better yet I just got done watching a Fox News report about a guy who has invented an engine that runs off of (hold onto your hats now) water. If anybody wants a copy give me a valid e-mail and I'll send it on. >Dear MoneyNews Reader, >Saudi Arabia's oil minister Ali al-Naimi is warning that oil price [quoted text clipped - 81 lines] >This email was sent by: NewsMax.Com >4152 West Blue Heron Blvd, Ste 1114 Riviera Beach, FL, 33404 USA  SignatureFor choosing to fight, one gets the horrors of war,stress,and possibly death. For choosing not to fight, one gets subjugation,humiliation,and possibly death. Choose your fights carefully. >>Just received this...... granted this publication is focused on >>investors, but we could sure use some good news.... [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >now) water. If anybody wants a copy give me a valid e-mail and I'll >send it on. Didn't we already have that with the steam engine? :0) Actually, some years ago there were several tests underway, including the City of Reno (NV) for their mass transit bus system, which, by some means/additive allowed gas molecules to attach to water molecules, or vice versa, in order to reduce the amount of gas used. Apparently, they initially reported up to a 25% reduction in fuel consumption and no damage caused by the water. Whatever became of the test programs, I never heard. -- Spike 1965 Ford Mustang Fastback 2+2, Vintage Burgundy w/Black Std Interior, A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok; Vintage 40 16" rims w/225/50ZR16 KDWS BF Goodrich gForce Radial T/As, Cobra drop; surround sound audio-video... See my ride at.... Feb 2004- http://207.36.208.198/albums/86810/003_May_21_3004.jpg Feb 2004- http://207.36.208.198/albums/86810/005_May_21_2004.jpg Jul 2005- http://207.36.208.198/albums/86810/davescar_7_11_05_002.jpg Jul 2005- http://207.36.208.198/albums/86810/Engine_rebuild_006.jpg >> Just received this...... granted this publication is focused on >> investors, but we could sure use some good news.... [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > now) water. If anybody wants a copy give me a valid e-mail and I'll > send it on. The compressed air powered car is something that might have potential. It costs just a fraction of the price, compared to gasoline, to refill the tank using electric compressors and it does not pollute. Here are a few links: http://www.theaircar.com/ http://auto.howstuffworks.com/air-car.htm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2281011.stm >> Dear MoneyNews Reader, >> Saudi Arabia's oil minister Ali al-Naimi is warning that oil price [quoted text clipped - 81 lines] >> This email was sent by: NewsMax.Com >> 4152 West Blue Heron Blvd, Ste 1114 Riviera Beach, FL, 33404 USA >>> Just received this...... granted this publication is focused on >>> investors, but we could sure use some good news.... [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >http://auto.howstuffworks.com/air-car.htm >http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2281011.stm How much energy does it take to produce the electricity to power the pump to fill the tank. My father, who is one of those electronic/electrical gurus who taught college courses in those areas, has some mathematically equation which indicated the rate of return for producing electricity to power motors is a negative number/or so close to it that it might as well be. He tried to explain it to me in simple terms but i guess i am more simple than that even.... -- Spike 1965 Ford Mustang Fastback 2+2, Vintage Burgundy w/Black Std Interior, A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok; Vintage 40 16" rims w/225/50ZR16 KDWS BF Goodrich gForce Radial T/As, Cobra drop; surround sound audio-video... See my ride at.... Feb 2004- http://207.36.208.198/albums/86810/003_May_21_3004.jpg Feb 2004- http://207.36.208.198/albums/86810/005_May_21_2004.jpg Jul 2005- http://207.36.208.198/albums/86810/davescar_7_11_05_002.jpg Jul 2005- http://207.36.208.198/albums/86810/Engine_rebuild_006.jpg >>>> Just received this...... granted this publication is focused on >>>> investors, but we could sure use some good news.... [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > close to it that it might as well be. He tried to explain it to me in > simple terms but i guess i am more simple than that even.... I read somewhere that it costs less than a dollar for the electricity to run the compressor to fill the tank. One of the articles I linked referenced $1.5 euros to fill a tank. Definitely more economical than gasoline. One of the things I find interesting about the air powered engines is they don't waste huge amounts of thermal energy like internal combustion engines. Most of the energy from burning gas in a car engine flies out the tail pipe as wasted heat. My guess is this is why they (air engines) are much more cost effective. Plus wind or solar power could run pumps at each users house to fill tanks up for use by individuals. I could get used to filling up my car at home. > Spike > 1965 Ford Mustang Fastback 2+2, Vintage Burgundy [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Jul 2005- http://207.36.208.198/albums/86810/davescar_7_11_05_002.jpg > Jul 2005- http://207.36.208.198/albums/86810/Engine_rebuild_006.jpg > >>>> Just received this...... granted this publication is focused on > >>>> investors, but we could sure use some good news.... [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > could run pumps at each users house to fill tanks up for use by > individuals. I could get used to filling up my car at home. What would you do in the winter time? Fill it with hot air? ;-) Dave >>>>>> Just received this...... granted this publication is focused on >>>>>> investors, but we could sure use some good news.... [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > What would you do in the winter time? Fill it with hot air? ;-) Well that is where my wife steps in. ;) Kate, I was just kidding!!! <snip> >Well that is where my wife steps in. ;) How are women & cars similar? Sometimes in the winter time when it is really, really cold out. No matter on how badly you need them, sometimes you just can't get them to turn over. SignatureFor choosing to fight, one gets the horrors of war,stress,and possibly death. For choosing not to fight, one gets subjugation,humiliation,and possibly death. Choose your fights carefully. >>> Just received this...... granted this publication is focused on >>> investors, but we could sure use some good news.... [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > costs just a fraction of the price, compared to gasoline, to refill the > tank using electric compressors and it does not pollute. Beyond the pollution that is created at the electric power plants you mean? One of my pet peeves is people touting the pollution free aspects of electricity! Fuel-fired electric power plants constitute the largest source of air pollution in the US Based on real data from DOE The U.S. uses fossil fuels to generate more than 2/3 of its electricity. 51% is generated with coal, 15% is generated with natural gas, and 3% is generated with petroleum. In 1999, electric power plants produced approximately 2.2 billion tons of carbon dioxide, 12 million tons of sulfur dioxide, and 7 million tons of nitrogen oxides. The average coal-fired power plant is only 1/3 efficient, meaning 2/3 of the energy in the fuel is wasted. The average fossil fuel-fired power plant was built in 1964, long before the Clean Air Act began requiring pollution controls. Of the largest 1000 fossil fuel-fired power plants in the U.S., 77% are not subject to pollution controls under the Clean Air Act's New Source Review requirements. Electricity IS NOT CLEAN!!! >>>> Just received this...... granted this publication is focused on >>>> investors, but we could sure use some good news.... [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > Electricity IS NOT CLEAN!!! And you think the internal combustion engine in your car is clean AND efficient? The engine in cars/trucks use approximately 25%-30% of the heat in every gallon of gas to run the vehicle. Most of the rest is lost as wasted heat. Power plants are much more efficient than car engines. Also, electricity can be generated from multiple sources like nuclear, hydro, wind, solar, tides, geothermal etc. People living in the southwest USA could probably use their own person solar cells to run compressors at their homes. Others might use wind in their areas. The point I am making is that electricity is a versatile power source that can be created in numerous ways and with little investment capital in many circumstances. Having a central power generation facility allows for everyone to simultaneously, and quickly, benefit from advances in technology and improvements in plant efficiency. BTW, electricity IS clean. The methods used to produce it can be clean if we chose to make it so. Unless we figure out how to split water molecules MUCH more efficiently the cars of the future will be electric powered. >>>>> Just received this...... granted this publication is focused on >>>>> investors, but we could sure use some good news.... [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] > we chose to make it so. Unless we figure out how to split water molecules > MUCH more efficiently the cars of the future will be electric powered. First off, I never stated I "think the internal combustion engine in your car is clean AND efficient". My reply was to correct your erroneous statement: ~It costs just a fraction of the price, compared to gasoline, to refill the tank using electric compressors and it does not pollute.~ Specifically the "does not pollute" part, that is an absolute distortion of the facts. Besides it appears you did not read what I posted before you replied, anyway. I stated: ~Electricity IS NOT CLEAN~ Your witty retort was to infer that I inferred something about internal combustion car engines cleanliness or efficiency... I posted: ~ The U.S. uses fossil fuels to generate more than 2/3 of its electricity. 51% is generated with coal, 15% is generated with natural gas, and 3% is generated with petroleum. The average coal-fired power plant is only 1/3 efficient, meaning 2/3 of the energy in the fuel is wasted.~ Your retort was: ~The engine in cars/trucks use approximately 25%-30% of the heat in every gallon of gas to run the vehicle.~ They both look pretty damn inefficient and dirty to me... <snip> >I posted: >~ The U.S. uses fossil fuels to generate more than 2/3 of its electricity. >51% is generated with coal, 15% is generated with natural gas, and 3% is >generated with petroleum. Well you forgot about WTE. Waste-to-energy facilities produce clean, renewable energy through the combustion of municipal solid waste in specially designed power plants equipped with the most modern pollution control equipment to clean emissions. Trash volume is reduced by 90% and the remaining residue is regularly tested and consistently meets strict EPA standards allowing reuse or disposal in landfills. There are 89 waste-to-energy plants operating in 27 states managing about 13 percent of Americas trash, or about 95,000 tons each day. Waste-to-energy generates about 2,500 megawatts of electricity to meet the power needs of nearly 2 million homes, and the facilities serve the trash disposal needs of more than 36 million people. The $10 billion waste-to-energy industry employs more than 6,000 American workers with annual wages in excess of $400 million. Why is waste-to-energy clean? Americas waste-to-energy facilities meet some of the most stringent environmental standards in the world and employ the most advanced emissions control equipment available. The EPA announced that Americas waste-to-energy plants produce dramatic decreases in air emissions, and produce electricity with less environmental impact than almost any other source of electricity. The outstanding performance of pollution control equipment used by the waste-to-energy industry has produced dramatic decreases in emissions. EPA data demonstrate that dioxin emissions have decreased by more than 99% in the past ten years, and represent less than one-half of one percent of the national dioxin inventory. Mercury emissions have declined by more than 95% and now represent two percent of the national inventory of man-made mercury emissions. Additionally, EPA estimates that waste-to-energy technology annually avoids 33 million metric tons of carbondioxide, a greenhouse gas, that would otherwise be released into the atmosphere. Communities served by these facilities recycle an average of 35% of their trash as compared with the national recycling rate of 30%. Waste-to-energy annually removes for recycling more than 700,000 tons of ferrous metals and more than 3 million tons of glass, metal, plastics, batteries, ash and yard waste at recycling centers located on site. Why is waste-to-energy renewable? For more than twenty years, waste-to-energy has been recognized as a source of renewable energy under existing law. Waste-to-energy is a clean, reliable, renewable source of energy, according to the U.S. EPA. The Federal Power Act, the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commissions regulations, and the Biomass Research and Development Act of 2000 all recognize waste-to-energy power as renewable biomass, as do fifteen states that have enacted electric restructuring laws. EPA estimates 75% of trash contains biomass on a Btu-output basis. Turning garbage into energy makes important contributions to the overall effort to achieve increased renewable energy use and the many associated positive environmental benefits, wrote Department of Energy Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, David Garman. What makes waste-to-energy reliable? Waste-to-energy plants supply power 365-days-a-year, 24-hours a day. Facilities average greater than 90% availability of installed capacity. Waste-to-energy plants generally operate in or near an urban area, easing transmission to the customer. Waste-to-energy power is sold as base load electricity. There is a constant need for trash disposal, and an equally constant, steady, and reliable energy generation. Waste-to-energy promotes energy diversity while helping cities meet the challenge of trash disposal. SignatureFor choosing to fight, one gets the horrors of war,stress,and possibly death. For choosing not to fight, one gets subjugation,humiliation,and possibly death. Choose your fights carefully. >>>>>> Just received this...... granted this publication is focused on >>>>>> investors, but we could sure use some good news.... [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] > > My reply was to correct your erroneous statement: Speaking of erroneous, your statement of "Electricity IS NOT CLEAN!!!" needs corrected. Actually electricity is clean and when generated using solar, tides, hydro, wind etc. it is extremely environmentally friendly. > ~It costs just a fraction of the price, compared to gasoline, to refill the > tank using electric compressors and it does not pollute.~ Well it does cost a fraction of the cost. I just paid $52 this afternoon to fill up my SUV. How long do you think $52 worth of electricity will run an air compressor? > Specifically the "does not pollute" part, that is an absolute distortion of > the facts. I don't have a monopoly on distorting the facts. You did a fine job of it yourself. > Besides it appears you did not read what I posted before you replied, > anyway. > I stated: > ~Electricity IS NOT CLEAN~ > Your witty retort was to infer that I inferred something about internal > combustion car engines cleanliness or efficiency... Well, isn't cost of operation (specifically, the price of gas) for a vehicle the root subject of this thread? It looks to me like you went off on a tangent and started a discussion on dirty electricity. I was discussing the cost of filling a tank with compressed air verses gasoline. > I posted: > ~ The U.S. uses fossil fuels to generate more than 2/3 of its electricity. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > They both look pretty damn inefficient and dirty to me... Well if you can't see the obvious cost and environmental benefit of compressed air powered vehicles over petroleum powered ones then I can't help you. Do the computations to determine the amount of electrical power needed to compress air into a 100-200 gallon tank to 3k-4k psi and I'm sure the bulb over your head will light up. I am willing to bet it would cost a great deal less than $52. BTW, what do YOU think the best alternative is to burning fossil fuels? >>>>>>> Just received this...... granted this publication is focused on >>>>>>> investors, but we could sure use some good news.... [quoted text clipped - 61 lines] > needs corrected. Actually electricity is clean and when generated using > solar, tides, hydro, wind etc. it is extremely environmentally friendly. Currently here in the real world in this country, that just doesn't apply. Maybe in the future, but today your "clean" electricity is being generated by burning very dirty fossil fuels. Put your thinking cap on' I'm sure you will get it. >> ~It costs just a fraction of the price, compared to gasoline, to refill >> the tank using electric compressors and it does not pollute.~ Not at the compressor, trace the line back to the pollution puffing fossil fuel burning power plant, and even someone as thick as you can see that it indeed does pollute, Christ! > Well it does cost a fraction of the cost. I just paid $52 this afternoon > to fill up my SUV. How long do you think $52 worth of electricity will [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I don't have a monopoly on distorting the facts. You did a fine job of it > yourself. You do in this conversation. >> Besides it appears you did not read what I posted before you replied, >> anyway. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > on a tangent and started a discussion on dirty electricity. I was > discussing the cost of filling a tank with compressed air verses gasoline. You stated "to refill the tank using electric compressors and it does not pollute." You were WRONG! >> I posted: >> ~ The U.S. uses fossil fuels to generate more than 2/3 of its [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > BTW, what do YOU think the best alternative is to burning fossil fuels? If either of us had the answer to that question we would be wealthy beyond belief. BUT neither you nor I can answer that question. Burning fossil fuels in your internal combustion engine or burning them in the Fuel-fired electric power plants just moves where the pollution is produced, It does not eliminate it... Untill there is a MAJOR change in how electricity is generated in this country, Fuel-fired electric power plants will continue to constitute the largest source of air pollution in the US. Electricity today IS NOT CLEAN. >>>>>>>> Just received this...... granted this publication is focused on >>>>>>>> investors, but we could sure use some good news.... [quoted text clipped - 64 lines] > by burning very dirty fossil fuels. Put your thinking cap on' I'm sure you > will get it. Well, IMO, gravitating toward electric powered vehicles eliminates a great deal of pollution by the end user. It is much more efficient to burn the fossil fuel at a central plant than in millions of combustion engines. How much electricity could be generated from the amount of gasoline that is burned by vehicles everyday? Definitely more that required to run those cars. That is a net savings of money and pollution. >>> ~It costs just a fraction of the price, compared to gasoline, to refill >>> the tank using electric compressors and it does not pollute.~ > > Not at the compressor, trace the line back to the pollution puffing fossil > fuel burning power plant, and even someone as thick as you can see that it > indeed does pollute, Christ! So that makes it easier to control pollution since it is generated at one point and not from millions of tail pipes. What about those cars that get their electricity from nuclear, hydro and clean fossil fuel plants? How much pollution is prevented from those cars not burning fossil fuels? >> Well it does cost a fraction of the cost. I just paid $52 this afternoon >> to fill up my SUV. How long do you think $52 worth of electricity will [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > pollute." > You were WRONG! Not if the power is coming from clean burning fossil fuel, hydro or nuclear plants and wind farms. By your definition of "dirty" (ie burning fossil fuel without scrubbers) this must be clean electricity, relatively speaking, of course. >>> I posted: >>> ~ The U.S. uses fossil fuels to generate more than 2/3 of its [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > the Fuel-fired electric power plants just moves where the pollution is > produced, It does not eliminate it... Burning fuel in a power plant verses an internal combustion engine reduces the quantity of pollution and makes it easier to apply new technologies to the benefit of everyone. Like I mentioned earlier, burning the gasoline we use in our vehicles everyday would generate more than enough electricity to run electric powered cars for that day. Moving to electric cars will not eliminate pollution right now but it is a step in the right direction. We can't make one big move to a new technology and solve all the problems at the same time. A big advantage for electricity is it can be generated in a variety of ways. This flexibility is a good thing and can actually give us the ability to become energy independent. It also makes the end user clean which in turn allows focus at one point to improve efficiency and pollution reduction (ie at the power plant). > Untill there is a MAJOR change in how electricity is generated in this > country, Fuel-fired electric power plants will continue to constitute the > largest source of air pollution in the US. This is still no reason to keep electric cars from the market. They will allow for a reduction of pollution whether power plants are revamped or they stay the same. > Electricity today IS NOT CLEAN. I swear my blender doesn't pollute when I turn it on. Maybe you should revise your statement to say "XX% of electricity GENERATION today is not clean". ;) >> Currently here in the real world in this country, that just doesn't >> apply. Maybe in the future, but today your "clean" electricity is being [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > is burned by vehicles everyday? Definitely more that required to run > those cars. That is a net savings of money and pollution. You state that as fact, I have never read or seen anything to support that statement. I believe that the emission standards of modern cars, and subsequently the percentage of total cars on the road have vastly outpaced fuel fired electrical generation plants (remember that 77% figure?) in the area of pollution reduction. >>>> ~It costs just a fraction of the price, compared to gasoline, to refill >>>> the tank using electric compressors and it does not pollute.~ [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > their electricity from nuclear, hydro and clean fossil fuel plants? How > much pollution is prevented from those cars not burning fossil fuels? First of all, unless they are using "clean" electricity from some source OFF the grid, there is no way to distinguish clean from dirty, it is all mixed together and dirty. And I don't even want to get started with the polution aspects of nuclear, if you haven't kept up, try doing some searchs for Hanford Nuclear Site Currently, the Hanford Site is engaged in the world's largest environmental cleanup, with many challenges to be resolved in the face of overlapping technical, political, regulatory, and cultural interests. >> You stated "to refill the tank using electric compressors and it does not >> pollute." [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > fossil fuel without scrubbers) this must be clean electricity, relatively > speaking, of course. Weather it is or is not, doesn't change the fact that there is no way to make that distinction with power from the grid. Hoping that our electricity is generated with less pollution in the future, doesn't alter the fact that currently fuel-fired electric power plants constitute the largest source of air pollution in the US. If you use electricity from the power grid, its production is the largest source of air pollution in the US, you can't put the Genie back in the bottle, electricity is NOT CLEAN. >>> BTW, what do YOU think the best alternative is to burning fossil fuels? >> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > makes the end user clean which in turn allows focus at one point to > improve efficiency and pollution reduction (ie at the power plant). Moving to new technologies and moving toward eliminating a lot of pollution is a good idea. Energy independence is a great goal. I'm actually looking into charting the wind on my property in the hopes of harnessing it for electrical generation. I can't wait to start cashing my checks from the power company. :-) But you still can NOT say that using electricity today in the US does not pollute. That is blatantly UNTRUE. >> Untill there is a MAJOR change in how electricity is generated in this >> country, Fuel-fired electric power plants will continue to constitute the [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > revise your statement to say "XX% of electricity GENERATION today is not > clean". ;) Maybe you should revise your statement to say my blender does pollute, at the other end of the wire, at the polluting power plant, when I turn it on. Just imagine your house running off a 15K diesel generator just outside in the driveway.. Electricity today IS NOT CLEAN. >>> Currently here in the real world in this country, that just doesn't >>> apply. Maybe in the future, but today your "clean" electricity is being [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > You state that as fact, I have never read or seen anything to support that > statement. Since you also haven't seen anything to disprove it, then what are you disputing? > I believe that the emission standards of modern cars, and subsequently the > percentage of total cars on the road have vastly outpaced fuel fired > electrical generation plants (remember that 77% figure?) in the area of > pollution reduction. Then why is LA still having major air quality problems if cars are so clean? >>>>> ~It costs just a fraction of the price, compared to gasoline, to refill >>>>> the tank using electric compressors and it does not pollute.~ [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > the grid, there is no way to distinguish clean from dirty, it is all mixed > together and dirty. Some people are using "clean" electricity. You're throwing the baby out with the bath water. > And I don't even want to get started with the polution aspects of nuclear, > if you haven't kept up, try doing some searchs for Hanford Nuclear Site > Currently, the Hanford Site is engaged in the world's largest environmental > cleanup, with many challenges to be resolved in the face of overlapping > technical, political, regulatory, and cultural interests. There you go throwing the baby out with the bath water again. >>> You stated "to refill the tank using electric compressors and it does not >>> pollute." [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > production is the largest source of air pollution in the US, you can't put > the Genie back in the bottle, electricity is NOT CLEAN. If a percentage of out electricity is generated while creating little pollution who cares if it is "mixed" with so called "dirty" electricity? So I can say that "X" percent of the electricity I use is clean and therefore my hypothetical air powered car is "X" percent clean "on the other end". >>>> BTW, what do YOU think the best alternative is to burning fossil fuels? >>> If either of us had the answer to that question we would be wealthy [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > power company. :-) But you still can NOT say that using electricity today > in the US does not pollute. That is blatantly UNTRUE. I said it doesn't pollute at the end user. >>> Untill there is a MAJOR change in how electricity is generated in this >>> country, Fuel-fired electric power plants will continue to constitute the [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Just imagine your house running off a 15K diesel generator just outside in > the driveway.. I will state it again, my blender does not pollute the air. No revision needed. > Electricity today IS NOT CLEAN. Electricity is an inherently clean form of energy. Producing electricity can be done with little to no pollution and it can also cause pollution. Your statement is not true because electricity by itself does not pollute when used. You should insert the word "production" into your statement. Then it would be partly true. >>>> Currently here in the real world in this country, that just doesn't >>>> apply. Maybe in the future, but today your "clean" electricity is being [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Since you also haven't seen anything to disprove it, then what are you > disputing? Since you are unable to provide any source of information to support you statement, we will toss it aside as more of your senseless bull sh.t. >> I believe that the emission standards of modern cars, and subsequently >> the percentage of total cars on the road have vastly outpaced fuel fired [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Then why is LA still having major air quality problems if cars are so > clean? I didn't say they were "so clean" I said there has been more progress toward cleaner cars, than there has been toward cleaner fossil fuel fired electrical power plants. You are aware of the meteorological and topographical factors of air pollution, a low inversion layer keeps pollution concentrated close to the ground over Los Angeles (cool air trapped by warm air above it keeps pollution from dispersing). >>>>>> ~It costs just a fraction of the price, compared to gasoline, to >>>>>> refill the tank using electric compressors and it does not pollute.~ [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Some people are using "clean" electricity. You're throwing the baby out > with the bath water. Not if they are using electricity off the grid. >> And I don't even want to get started with the polution aspects of >> nuclear, if you haven't kept up, try doing some searchs for Hanford [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > There you go throwing the baby out with the bath water again. Are you serious, just ignore the pollution and then you can say dirty power production is pollution free? >>>> You stated "to refill the tank using electric compressors and it does >>>> not pollute." [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > If a percentage of out electricity is generated while creating little > pollution who cares if it is "mixed" with so called "dirty" electricity? Anyone who wants to truly be honest about the pollution produced along with their electricity, rather than trying to pretend it doesn't exist. You can claim electricity is pollution free until you are blue in the face, but we both know that is bullshit. > So I can say that "X" percent of the electricity I use is clean and > therefore my hypothetical air powered car is "X" percent clean "on the [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > I said it doesn't pollute at the end user. That is not what you said! You stated "to refill the tank using electric compressors and it does not pollute." >>>> Untill there is a MAJOR change in how electricity is generated in this >>>> country, Fuel-fired electric power plants will continue to constitute [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > when used. You should insert the word "production" into your statement. > Then it would be partly true. Producing electricity can be done with little to no pollution, but the vast majority IS NOT. No matter how you try to twist it around to fit your original FALSE statement. My statement IS absolutely true, you can not separate the production of electricity from the electricity itself. Without the dirty production part there is no pollution free use part. Damn! Do you realize how silly the distinction you are trying to make is? That's like trying to say the heat from a wood burning fire is smoke free... >>>>> Currently here in the real world in this country, that just doesn't >>>>> apply. Maybe in the future, but today your "clean" electricity is being [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Since you are unable to provide any source of information to support you > statement, we will toss it aside as more of your senseless bull sh.t. Well if you are going to barge into a thread and say I am wrong then at least have the ambition to prove it. >>> I believe that the emission standards of modern cars, and subsequently >>> the percentage of total cars on the road have vastly outpaced fuel fired [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > toward cleaner cars, than there has been toward cleaner fossil fuel fired > electrical power plants. Any proof of this? If not then I guess "we will toss it aside as more of your senseless bull sh.t". ;) > You are aware of the meteorological and topographical factors of air > pollution, a low inversion layer keeps pollution concentrated close to the > ground over Los Angeles (cool air trapped by warm air above it keeps > pollution from dispersing). I'm well aware of it but meteorological and topographical conditions aren't causing the pollution, the vehicles are the cause. I guess that means they aren't "clean". Those blenders churning out thousands of margaritas every day aren't adding to the problem though and neither are those electric powered cars. >>>>>>> ~It costs just a fraction of the price, compared to gasoline, to >>>>>>> refill the tank using electric compressors and it does not pollute.~ [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Not if they are using electricity off the grid. We might as well stop all production of electricity using environmentally friendly means since it becomes "dirty" electricity if it travels the same wire as an electron leaving a coal fired plant? If we don't get electricity off the grid where will we get it? Flying kites in the back yard during thunder storms? Assuming you ever do produce excess electricity at your home and push it into the grid, I guess it will be "dirty" electricity too? >>> And I don't even want to get started with the polution aspects of >>> nuclear, if you haven't kept up, try doing some searchs for Hanford [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Are you serious, just ignore the pollution and then you can say dirty power > production is pollution free? You are the one speaking in absolutes, not me. >>>>> You stated "to refill the tank using electric compressors and it does >>>>> not pollute." [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > claim electricity is pollution free until you are blue in the face, but we > both know that is bullshit. Well now I see you are confused because I never said the production of electricity was 100% pollution free. Now you are arguing with yourself because it certainly isn't me. >> So I can say that "X" percent of the electricity I use is clean and >> therefore my hypothetical air powered car is "X" percent clean "on the [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > You stated "to refill the tank using electric compressors and it does not > pollute." You do realize the "it" I was referring to was the air powered car? Even if I meant the compressor it would still be an accurate statement because the compressor doesn't pollute either. >>>>> Untill there is a MAJOR change in how electricity is generated in this >>>>> country, Fuel-fired electric power plants will continue to constitute [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > majority IS NOT. No matter how you try to twist it around to fit your > original FALSE statement. What exactly was my false statement? You have been bouncing around like a pinball and I lost track of your point. > My statement IS absolutely true, you can not separate the production of > electricity from the electricity itself. Without the dirty production part > there is no pollution free use part. Damn! LOL! This statement is crazy on so many levels I don't know where to start picking it apart. So what you are saying is that all the production of electricity from clean sources is just a wasted effort? > Do you realize how silly the distinction you are trying to make is? Not nearly as silly as the one rattling around in your head. > That's like trying to say the heat from a wood burning fire is smoke free... Well if wood is burned under certain conditions it can be nearly smoke free but let's not go there. >> Not if they are using electricity off the grid. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > electricity at your home and push it into the grid, I guess it will be > "dirty" electricity too? You can't truly be this thick, can you? As it applies to how much pollution is or isn't being produced because of environmentally friendly electricity, yes it is only a small drop in a large bucket, and stopping it wouldn't make any discernible difference. If you were to shut off all of the "dirty" electricity there wouldn't be enough "clean" electricity to run anything... No matter how you twist it, if you use electricity off the grid, there was pollution produced in the generation process. As to environmentally friendly electricity, you are talking about a couple percent of all electric power in this country, 95+% of all commercial electricity generated causes allot of pollution. Clean renewable energy (geothermal, wind, and solar) provided an average of 1.4 percent of all electricity generated in California during the 15-year period from 1985 to 1999. The largest source was geothermal energy, averaging 7.3 percent over the 15-year period. Next was biomass at 2.6 percent, wind at 1.2 percent, and solar at 0.3 percent. You keep acting like you are off your meds or something, the fact is when you use electricity from the power grid, for any reason, more than 95% of that electricity was generated in very "dirty" polluting power plants. If I ever do produce excess electricity at my home and push it into the power grid, it won't do a damn thing to offset all the pollution being produced generating the electricity you are using. The only thing it is going to offset is my own power bill... >>> Not if they are using electricity off the grid. >> We might as well stop all production of electricity using environmentally [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > You can't truly be this thick, can you? I'm not a candidate for MENSA and from what you have contributed to this thread I can see you aren't either. > Burning fossil fuels in your internal combustion engine or burning them > in the Fuel-fired electric power plants just moves where the pollution > is produced, It does not eliminate it... > Untill there is a MAJOR change in how electricity is generated in this > country, Fuel-fired electric power plants will continue to constitute > the largest source of air pollution in the US. > Electricity today IS NOT CLEAN. You are sort of correct. The majority of electricity is not clean, but there is a system in place to make a major shift to clean, or 'green' electricity. It's just that nobody wants to use it. You can specifically order 'green' electricity from your local power source. And if enough people do this, there will be a major shift. The catch is nobody wants to pay more for this. Schadenfreudist <hehe@hehe.hehe> Fri, 19 May 2006 19:50:56 -0700 > > Burning fossil fuels in your internal combustion engine or burning them > > in the Fuel-fired electric power plants just moves where the pollution [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >people do this, there will be a major shift. The catch is nobody wants to >pay more for this. Thanks for bringing this up, but it is only accurate in areas where electricity has been deregulated and the end consumer gets to pick their provider. This is a point I tried to make earlier; people don't want to pay the freight for the "Green" versions of anything, yet the still reserve the right to bitch & moan. The technology exists to make every "dirty" power generating facility a lot more clean, not perfect, but much better. However, the cost is HUGE. If the operators of the plant are not allowed to pass these retrofit costs on to the end consumers, they just aren't going to make them. As energy deregulation spreads across the country this problem is just going to get worse as everyone scrambles to buy the "cheapest", vice the cleanest. SignatureFor choosing to fight, one gets the horrors of war,stress,and possibly death. For choosing not to fight, one gets subjugation,humiliation,and possibly death. Choose your fights carefully. Michael Johnson, PE wrote <and I snipped>: > Well if you can't see the obvious cost and environmental benefit of > compressed air powered vehicles over petroleum powered ones then I can't > help you. Do the computations to determine the amount of electrical > power needed to compress air into a 100-200 gallon tank to 3k-4k psi and > I'm sure the bulb over your head will light up. I am willing to bet it > would cost a great deal less than $52. Totally apples:oranges, eh? I suggest that the best comparison for the sake of my billfold is $/mile; just ignoring environmental impact. SignatureCheers, Bob > Michael Johnson, PE wrote <and I snipped>: > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Totally apples:oranges, eh? I suggest that the best comparison for the > sake of my billfold is $/mile; just ignoring environmental impact. They state a refill will cost 1.5 euros and that will be good for 200km. That equates to 1.5 cents per mile for fuel cost. Taking that and the fact my Explorer gets 18 mpg on a good day that is a cost of 27 cents per equivalent gallon of gasoline (1.5 x 18). I'm sure a larger vehicle like an SUV will be less efficient but a larger vehicle can carry multiple or larger air tanks to increase range. Even if an SUV takes twice the amount of fuel that still is a bargain at 54 cents per equivalent gallon of gas. >> Michael Johnson, PE wrote <and I snipped>: >> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > takes twice the amount of fuel that still is a bargain at 54 cents per > equivalent gallon of gas. Who is this "they"? If you want to fairly compare the cost of a vehicle operating on gas and a comparable vehicle operating on compressed air, you will need some examples of commercial compressed air filling stations and commercially-sold vehicles that use compressed air. I suspect that "they" are comparing something real (gas cars and filling stations) with with something that is only projected from lab-based models. So, do "they" have any examples of commercial compressed air operations, operating in a real political environment, complete with regulations and taxes? SignatureCheers, Bob >>> Michael Johnson, PE wrote <and I snipped>: >>> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > "they" are comparing something real (gas cars and filling stations) with > with something that is only projected from lab-based models. Of course they are comparing lab based models against an existing system. I don't think anyone is disputing this. Fitting a gas station with compressors would be fairly easy and the "product" being sold is already on location waiting to be compressed (ie air). It looks to me like getting an infrastructure up and running for compressed air would be pretty easy and simple. It wouldn't be that hard to install a unit at your house. > So, do "they" have any examples of commercial compressed air operations, > operating in a real political environment, complete with regulations > and taxes? They have running prototypes but commercial sales of the vehicles have not happened yet. Hell, I don't know if it will take off but the engineer in me sees many advantages of using compressed air over fossil fuel. Maybe this is just one of what will eventually be many alternatives to gas powered vehicles. All I can say is that I'm tired of not having a choice of fuels and sending billions of dollars to other countries instead of spending it here. >Michael Johnson, PE wrote <and I snipped>: > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >Totally apples:oranges, eh? I suggest that the best comparison for the >sake of my billfold is $/mile; just ignoring environmental impact. Ever since the invention of the automobile we've focused on the $/mile part of the equation and ignored the environmental impact. As my Daddy once said; "It ain't wise to sh.t where you eat". This mentality is already coming back to bite us on the a.s. Would you rather have the cheapest $/mile transportation and walk around with an oxygen tanks strapped to your back in order to breath? Just imagine if any one of us treated their own homes the way we collectively treat the planet that is all of our homes? Don't get me wrong I ain't no tree hugger or even anything close to it, but in most cases it is usually cheaper in the long run to do something right then to clean up the mess from doing it wrong. At the beginning of the industrial revolution we didn't know any better. We sure as hell know better today, we just are to cheap to pay the freight of doing it right. One day in the future, not in any of our lifetimes (and that is part of the problem) we'll have consumed all of this planets natural resources and F'd it up so badly that we will have to reach into space like a herd of locusts to find another world to consume. Hey that sounds like a movie of the week. SignatureFor choosing to fight, one gets the horrors of war,stress,and possibly death. For choosing not to fight, one gets subjugation,humiliation,and possibly death. Choose your fights carefully. > <snip> > One day in the future, not in any of our lifetimes (and that is part > of the problem) we'll have consumed all of this planets natural > resources and F'd it up so badly that we will have to reach into space > like a herd of locusts to find another world to consume. Hey that > sounds like a movie of the week. No, we will start mining the landfills for all that "valuable" garbage. Plus when you look at the volume of iron, aluminum, copper etc. in the Earth's crust I doubt we will ever exhaust that supply of raw material. What we will likely do is use up all the energy sources like oil, coal, natural gas etc. IMO, energy consumption/production will be the biggest issue we face in the future. How we handle this problem will determine whether we have a clean planet to live on or a cesspool. >>Michael Johnson, PE wrote <and I snipped>: >> [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > like a herd of locusts to find another world to consume. Hey that > sounds like a movie of the week. I don't argue with your viewpoint, but that is not the point on which I was attempting to focus. SignatureCheers, Bob >> My reply was to correct your erroneous statement: > >Speaking of erroneous, your statement of "Electricity IS NOT CLEAN!!!" >needs corrected. Actually electricity is clean and when generated using >solar, tides, hydro, wind etc. it is extremely environmentally friendly. Don't forget nuclear... -- lab~rat >:-) Do you want polite or do you want sincere? >>> My reply was to correct your erroneous statement: >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Don't forget nuclear... Don't forget nuclear waste. SignatureFor choosing to fight, one gets the horrors of war,stress,and possibly death. For choosing not to fight, one gets subjugation,humiliation,and possibly death. Choose your fights carefully. >>>> My reply was to correct your erroneous statement: >>> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> >Don't forget nuclear waste. True, but it IS clean nonetheless. And there are ways to dispose of nuclear waste that haven't been exploited. I wonder if there are any recycling potentials there... -- lab~rat >:-) Do you want polite or do you want sincere? >>>>> My reply was to correct your erroneous statement: >>>> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >nuclear waste that haven't been exploited. I wonder if there are any >recycling potentials there... That would be the U.S. Department of Energys Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative (AFCI). However, all it does is change the waste from one form to another to make the amount required to store smaller. The Advanced Recycle Facility (ARF) would remove uranium and plutonium from spent fuel along with the long-lived reactor wastes, such as americium and neptunium, which take thousands of years to decay, and recycle them into new fuel. Burning the recycled fuel to make electricity destroys the long-lived wastes. With that gone, only the short-lived wastes will need to be stored in a repository. The total amount of waste in the repository is reduced and in less than 1,000 years, the short-lived wastes decay until they are safer than the natural ore the original fuel came from. According to the U.S. Department of Energy, civilian nuclear reactors have produced more than 40,000 metric tons of spent fuel, about enough to cover one football field four yards deep. By 2010, DOE expects this figure to exceed 60,000 metric tons. Even if the recycling does prove effective and the nuclear waste stream is reduced in size by half, that is still and awful lot of really nasty a.s sh.t out there for at least 1,000 years. Perhaps we can turn the moon into a nuclear landfill. SignatureFor choosing to fight, one gets the horrors of war,stress,and possibly death. For choosing not to fight, one gets subjugation,humiliation,and possibly death. Choose your fights carefully. >>>>>> My reply was to correct your erroneous statement: >>>>> Speaking of erroneous, your statement of "Electricity IS NOT CLEAN!!!" [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > to cover one football field four yards deep. By 2010, DOE expects this > figure to exceed 60,000 metric tons. You know, maybe I am warped on this but, I expected the volume to be much greater than this for all civilian nuclear facilities. I wonder what the equivalent volume of coal or petroleum would be to produce the same amount of electricity as the nuclear material that made the waste. > Even if the recycling does prove effective and the nuclear waste > stream is reduced in size by half, that is still and awful lot of > really nasty a.s sh.t out there for at least 1,000 years. > > Perhaps we can turn the moon into a nuclear landfill. >>>>>>> My reply was to correct your erroneous statement: >>>>>> Speaking of erroneous, your statement of "Electricity IS NOT CLEAN!!!" [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] >what the equivalent volume of coal or petroleum would be to produce the >same amount of electricity as the nuclear material that made the waste. I would have expected to have your expectations as well. I was more then a tad surprised. It has always been presented as a really BIG problem by those in the anti-nuke camp. >> Even if the recycling does prove effective and the nuclear waste >> stream is reduced in size by half, that is still and awful lot of >> really nasty a.s sh.t out there for at least 1,000 years. >> >> Perhaps we can turn the moon into a nuclear landfill. SignatureFor choosing to fight, one gets the horrors of war,stress,and possibly death. For choosing not to fight, one gets subjugation,humiliation,and possibly death. Choose your fights carefully. >>>>>>>> My reply was to correct your erroneous statement: >>>>>>> Speaking of erroneous, your statement of "Electricity IS NOT CLEAN!!!" [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > then a tad surprised. It has always been presented as a really BIG > problem by those in the anti-nuke camp. If that is all the waste ever generated by ALL civilian nuclear power plants then I say lets fire up more of these puppies. I don't see where storing that amount of waste underground is that big of an issue. The tectonic plates don't move so fast that it is a concern, IMHO. I would rather spend the money here than ship it by the tanker load to the Middle East to fund their next wave of attacks. Thanks for the good information. BTW, is that 40k-mt figure just for the USA? >>> Even if the recycling does prove effective and the nuclear waste >>> stream is reduced in size by half, that is still and awful lot of >>> really nasty a.s sh.t out there for at least 1,000 years. >>> >>> Perhaps we can turn the moon into a nuclear landfill. <snip> >>>> According to the U.S. Department of Energy, civilian nuclear reactors >>>> have produced more than 40,000 metric tons of spent fuel, about enough [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >Middle East to fund their next wave of attacks. Thanks for the good >information. BTW, is that 40k-mt figure just for the USA? I would suspect just the US as the report is from the U.S. Department of Energy regarding civilian reactors. Who knows how much stuff military reactors have cranked out. I also bet the Soviets played it little fast & loose with that stuff as well. The one by me http://www.dom.com/about/stations/nuclear/surry/index.jsp has been in operation for a very long time, like 34 years, and most people have even forgotten it is there. As far as I know there has never been an incident with it either. We also have nuclear powered Navy ships out our butt in my area as well. Nuclear energy is produced at a cost of ~$18 per megawatt hour in most plants. The average production cost of a coal plant is $35; an oil plant, $90; and a natural gas plant, $245. A nuclear plant displaces about 7.5 million metric tons of carbon dioxide that would be produced in a similar coal fired plant generating the same amount of megawatts. SignatureFor choosing to fight, one gets the horrors of war,stress,and possibly death. For choosing not to fight, one gets subjugation,humiliation,and possibly death. Choose your fights carefully. >> I would have expected to have your expectations as well. I was more >> then a tad surprised. It has always been presented as a really BIG [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > East to fund their next wave of attacks. Thanks for the good information. > BTW, is that 40k-mt figure just for the USA? That's not even close, that is just the actual spent fuel rods, not all the tons of contaminated other parts, pieces, pipes, vessels, & thousands of gallons of contaminated liquids... >>>> Even if the recycling does prove effective and the nuclear waste >>>> stream is reduced in size by half, that is still and awful lot of >>>> really nasty a.s sh.t out there for at least 1,000 years. >>>> >>>> Perhaps we can turn the moon into a nuclear landfill. >>> I would have expected to have your expectations as well. I was more >>> then a tad surprised. It has always been presented as a really BIG [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >tons of contaminated other parts, pieces, pipes, vessels, & thousands of >gallons of contaminated liquids... Yeah I didn't think about the fact that the majority of the plant itself is contaminated. As long as it is up & operating then it is a power plant. But if it shuts down it is basically a great big super fund site. Thanks for pointing that out. While it doesn't appear that an awful lot of people are interested, and this probably isn't even the right group for this discussion we as both a country & residents of this planet are going to eventually have to come up with some major alternatives to all of our energy needs. While I'll gripe about the price of a gallon of gas as much as the next guy, hell I still remember prices in the 20-cent range, normalized out for inflation as compared to the increase in wages it really hasn't gone up all that much. Back when it was in the 20-cent range that was about 10-15% of my hourly wage. While I'm no longer paid by the hour, current prices are more like 5% of my normalized hourly rate so I guess I should quit my bitchin. SignatureFor choosing to fight, one gets the horrors of war,stress,and possibly death. For choosing not to fight, one gets subjugation,humiliation,and possibly death. Choose your fights carefully. >>That's not even close, that is just the actual spent fuel rods, not all >>the [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > paid by the hour, current prices are more like 5% of my normalized > hourly rate so I guess I should quit my bitchin. Ya, the bitching comes not so much from the price, or even how that price relates to our incomes, as it does to the fact that most of us have near ZERO other options than to simply pay the price. In many cases, fuel use in non-discretionary. We are forced to pay, or cease to live a life as we know it. Add to that these obscene oil industry profits and compensation packages. It all equals a real hard pill to swallow. >>> I would have expected to have your expectations as well. I was more >>> then a tad surprised. It has always been presented as a really BIG [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > tons of contaminated other parts, pieces, pipes, vessels, & thousands of > gallons of contaminated liquids... I guess the old saying still holds, "There's no such thing as a free lunch" but there is a lot of waste byproducts from coal and petroleum fired plants. The ones with the least impacts might be natural gas but they are the most expensive to operate. >>>>> Even if the recycling does prove effective and the nuclear waste >>>>> stream is reduced in size by half, that is still and awful lot of >>>>> really nasty a.s sh.t out there for at least 1,000 years. >>>>> >>>>> Perhaps we can turn the moon into a nuclear landfill. >>>> I would have expected to have your expectations as well. I was more >>>> then a tad surprised. It has always been presented as a really BIG [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > fired plants. The ones with the least impacts might be natural gas but > they are the most expensive to operate. Absolutely, but it is imperative on all of us to see that we aren't killing the whole heard just to eat one animal. :-) With the impending demise of hydro power, wind and solar sure do seem a lot more planet friendly than the current remaining options... >>>>>> Even if the recycling does prove effective and the nuclear waste >>>>>> stream is reduced in size by half, that is still and awful lot of >>>>>> really nasty a.s sh.t out there for at least 1,000 years. >>>>>> >>>>>> Perhaps we can turn the moon into a nuclear landfill. >>>>> I would have expected to have your expectations as well. I was more >>>>> then a tad surprised. It has always been presented as a really BIG [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > hydro power, wind and solar sure do seem a lot more planet friendly than the > current remaining options... I think one very promising method is using tidal activity. Just think of the amount of energy it takes to raise and lower sea levels globally everyday by several feet. If we can tap into that energy in a meaningful way it would be a huge resource. >>>>>> I would have expected to have your expectations as well. I was more >>>>>> then a tad surprised. It has always been presented as a really BIG [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] >everyday by several feet. If we can tap into that energy in a >meaningful way it would be a huge resource. Hey, if ya think that is something imagine harnessing the energy of PMSing women. Talk about rising with the tide. SignatureFor choosing to fight, one gets the horrors of war,stress,and possibly death. For choosing not to fight, one gets subjugation,humiliation,and possibly death. Choose your fights carefully. >>>>>>> I would have expected to have your expectations as well. I was more >>>>>>> then a tad surprised. It has always been presented as a really BIG [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > Hey, if ya think that is something imagine harnessing the energy of > PMSing women. Talk about rising with the tide. Ewwwwww!!! >>>>>>>> My reply was to correct your erroneous statement: >>>>>>> Speaking of erroneous, your statement of "Electricity IS NOT CLEAN!!!" [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] >then a tad surprised. It has always been presented as a really BIG >problem by those in the anti-nuke camp. Plus, carbon based energy leaves perhaps a larger volume of waste that, depending on your view of greenhouse effect, could last longer than 1000 years and isn't contained... -- lab~rat >:-) Do you want polite or do you want sincere? >>>>>> My reply was to correct your erroneous statement: >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > > Perhaps we can turn the moon into a nuclear landfill. Thought those of you with an interust in this topic might like to take a look at this site.... Waste Management in the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Nuclear Issues Briefing Paper 9 February 2006 http://www.uic.com.au/nip09.htm > >>>> My reply was to correct your erroneous statement: > >>> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > nuclear waste that haven't been exploited. I wonder if there are any > recycling potentials there... You mean other than military ordnance? Depleted uranium has its uses. Richard >> >>>> My reply was to correct your erroneous statement: >> >>> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > >You mean other than military ordnance? Depleted uranium has its uses. I, for one, have no problem with nuclear power. I think it's a good answer while we explore other avenues. Hell, I wouldn't mind having a nuclear powered car! -- lab~rat >:-) Do you want polite or do you want sincere? >>> >>>> My reply was to correct your erroneous statement: >>> >>> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >answer while we explore other avenues. Hell, I wouldn't mind having a >nuclear powered car! The start-up lag is a real bitch. SignatureFor choosing to fight, one gets the horrors of war,stress,and possibly death. For choosing not to fight, one gets subjugation,humiliation,and possibly death. Choose your fights carefully. <snip> >BTW, electricity IS clean. The methods used to produce it can be clean >if we chose to make it so. Unless we figure out how to split water >molecules MUCH more efficiently the cars of the future will be electric >powered. Well without getting all uppity about it I work for an organization that uses garbage (Refuse Derived Fuel) to generate electricity thereby saving landfill space and taking the chance at polluting the water table. The process is called WTE, Waste-to-Energy. We sure as hell are subject to the Clean Air Act and have emissions from our stacks cleaner the surrounding air. We also pump the methane gas from the materials that are landfilled (not everything can be burnt) and use that to produce electricity as well. We also have one customer who uses it as a substitute for LP. SignatureFor choosing to fight, one gets the horrors of war,stress,and possibly death. For choosing not to fight, one gets subjugation,humiliation,and possibly death. Choose your fights carefully. > <snip> >> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > (not everything can be burnt) and use that to produce electricity as > well. We also have one customer who uses it as a substitute for LP. That is nice, but as I have already stated, more than 2/3 of the electricity generated in the U.S. is generated by burning DIRTY fossil fuels. > <snip> >> BTW, electricity IS clean. The methods used to produce it can be clean [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > subject to the Clean Air Act and have emissions from our stacks > cleaner the surrounding air. There are multitudes of ways to produce electricity with little to no pollution. Even the power plants that burn coal and petroleum have scrubbers that leave the discharge air very clean. > We also pump the methane gas from the materials that are landfilled > (not everything can be burnt) and use that to produce electricity as > well. We also have one customer who uses it as a substitute for LP. I remember walking around a construction debris landfill for concrete, tree stumps and other organic material and hearing the methane exit from the vent pipes. The methane was exiting so fast it sounded like a jet engine and there were dozens of these pipes throughout the site. I remember thinking that it was a huge waste of energy. > There are multitudes of ways to produce electricity with little to no > pollution. Even the power plants that burn coal and petroleum have > scrubbers that leave the discharge air very clean. In your dreams maybe... Of the largest 1000 fossil fuel-fired power plants in the U.S., 77% are not subject to pollution controls under the Clean Air Act's New Source Review requirements. Fuel-fired electric power plants constitute the largest source of air pollution in the US. >> There are multitudes of ways to produce electricity with little to no >> pollution. Even the power plants that burn coal and petroleum have [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >Fuel-fired electric power plants constitute the largest source of air >pollution in the US. And what is your point? You willing to turn-off your lights and move into a cave? The current law states that; All new plants, or major additions to existing plants, regardless of size or location need to adhere to New Source Performance Standards (NSPSs). These are standards determined by the EPA considering cost, environmental effects, and state of the art technology. After the EPA sets the standards, it is the responsibility of the state to issue permits and enforce them. New sources in non-attainment areas are required to adhere to the lowest achievable emissions rate (LAER) which is the lowest emissions rate achieved by a similar source or the lowest rate for a similar source in a SIP anywhere in the country. A new source wishing to enter a PSD area needs to use the best achievable control technology (BACT) which is based on a maximum amount of achievable reductions once cost and technology are considered. These standards, LAER and BACT, need to be at least as strict as NSPS. Why isn't the above happening if it is the law? I'll tell you why. There is one little phrase "once cost and technology are considered" in the above law. In most places the cost of electricity is highly regulated. The power generation companies are not allowed to pass on the cost of these new technologies to their customers. There are plenty of alternatives to fossil fuel generated electricity, the problem is we Americans don't want to pay the up front price for the R&D & installation. The average Joe Blow American could be running most of their homes power needs with energy produced right on their own little plot of land via solar, wind, or even fuel cell technology. SignatureFor choosing to fight, one gets the horrors of war,stress,and possibly death. For choosing not to fight, one gets subjugation,humiliation,and possibly death. Choose your fights carefully. Michael Johnson, PE wrote <and I snipped>: > There are multitudes of ways to produce electricity with little to no > pollution. Even the power plants that burn coal and petroleum have > scrubbers that leave the discharge air very clean. Scrubbers exist that do, as you kinda said, clean up the exhaust air from power plants. But until the government forces or coerces all coal and oil-fired power plants to deploy the technology, many will continue to spew forth tons of pollution. SignatureCheers, Bob >Michael Johnson, PE wrote <and I snipped>: > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >coal and oil-fired power plants to deploy the technology, many will >continue to spew forth tons of pollution. Actually until the local governments allow the energy producers to pass the cost of these new technologies on to the end customer it isn't going to happen either. There is one phrase in the latest clean air act that stops most of this from happening "once cost and technology are considered". Current producers are allowed to simply shrug their shoulders and say "Well it'll cost this much, and we need to raise our rates to this" and the states immediately back off any demands to improve air quality. No politician wants to be accused of being the guy who caused electrical costs to go up. I work for a governmental authority that produces electricity. We do it 105% in full compliance with the law and are monitored like a Hawk eyes its prey. The cost of compliance is significant and we can only charge per megawatt generated what the state will allow us. Because of these costs our Board consistently wants to shut us down because of operating costs. Our only saving grace is that our fuel is garbage which solves another problem that is also regulated to hell & gone, waste disposal and we are running out of land available for landfill space. Why? Because of other governmental regulations concerning wetlands. The American public is going to have to wake up one day and realize that can have it all good, fast, and cheap. Only two of the three can ever exist at one point in time. SignatureFor choosi |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message